Satan Not Neccesary

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think the sum total of the opposition we have towards God because of the natural man supplies sufficient opposition.  1000 1 kg weights are equivalent in weight to 1 1000 kg weight.

Then why did God, who is infinitely more intelligent and wise than the best of men, cast Lucifer and his followers down to earth to tempt, afflict and torment man? Is God lacking in intelligence and/or wisdom by exposing man to the machinations a being whose designs stand in diametric to all that he stands for if it wasn’t necessary? How can men inherit the fullness of God’s glory, and thereby become joint heirs with Christ in receiving the fullness of God’s blessings, without overcoming the devil, the author of all that is evil and spiritually destructive?

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. (Moroni 7)

and…

39 And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye? Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd, and ye are of his fold; and now, who can deny this? Behold, I say unto you, whosoever denieth this is a liar and a child of the devil.

40 For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil. (Alma 5)

In light of the above verses, it seems to me that saying the devil is unnecessary is suspiciously close to the following:

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

23 Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. (2 Nephi 2)

 

Edited July 30 by teddyaware

[Calm]

Except I am not saying there is no devil, I am saying we all have parts of us that are devilish.

I am for personal accountability of the evil we do, not blaming evil on someone else.

I don’t believe scriptures are meant to be history books, but rather teach us about ourselves and God.

Edited July 30 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 7/30/2026 at 1:39 PM, teddyaware said:

It’s amazing how otherwise knowledgeable members of the church can be so easily led astray! In 2 Nephi 2, the Prophet Lehi makes it abundantly clear that there must needs be opposition in all things in order for there to be a rational predication for the existence of all things. This can only mean that in order for this existence to continue there must be a being capable of thought and action who stands in diametric opposition to God because God is in fact a ‘thing’ — in this case the most important and preeminent of all things. Therefore since God is an intelligent being of perfect righteousness, the law of opposition in all things requires that there must be a living, thinking agent of absolute unrighteousness who stands in diametric opposition to the righteousness God. If this were not the case, Lehi informs us that all things that presently exist would vanish away into nothingness… And take note that in the following verse Lehi testifies that the presence of the devil on earth is EXPEDIENT (necessary) in the Father’s plan of salvation.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 Nephi 2:27)

It therefore follows that Satan is co-equal with God or there is not opposition in all things. Also that God must be tempted by devils as well or He would face no opposition.

Lehi is reasoning here but it isn’t very sound reasoning.

[teddyaware]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It therefore follows that Satan is co-equal with God or there is not opposition in all things. Also that God must be tempted by devils as well or He would face no opposition.

Lehi is reasoning here but it isn’t very sound reasoning.

It’s your reasoning that’s utterly ridiculous. The beings that inhabit outer darkness may be coeval with God, but they stand in absolute diametric opposition to the infinite and eternal light, life, intelligence, wisdom and love of God. It appears your obsession with DEI may have thrown your power to reason out of kilter. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It appears your obsession with DEI may have thrown your power to reason out of kilter. 

He is just following your logic. 

[Calm]

On 7/30/2026 at 4:02 PM, teddyaware said:

without overcoming the devil, the author of all that is evil and spiritually destructive?

If the author of all evil is the natural man (not only the physical, but spiritual and emotional) that is part of our nature, the part we are taught we must overcome (Mosiah 3:19 iirc), seems to work fine in my view.  
 

Edited August 2 by Calm

[Calm]

Btw, I am not trying to convince anyone Satan doesn’t exist, do whatever works to keep you making good choices, but I know of those who do not view the existence of Satan as reasonable (who tempted Lucifer to become evil if he is the author of all that is evil?) .  I find it more intelligent, rather than dump the idea of temptation, to view ourselves to being prone to fill the role of Satan ourselves, in essence we become Satan tempting ourselves and tempting others to increase our sense of power and glory, just as Lucifer did when he gave into his own evil desires becoming.  I think it’s detrimental to dismiss the belief that we aren’t influenced by actual evil.   I also believe there were those who rebelled against God in the preexistence.  Certainly could have had a leader who was a son of the morning.   I lean against the idea that those beings devote their entire existence to trying to tempt others, that we are surrounded by hordes of these trying to possess us, etc.  Open to the possibility it’s more than an allegory for our mixed up, screwed up internal state, but don’t see it as required to explain reality.  And it doesn’t come across as the act of a loving and reasonable God to me even if “opposition” is necessary for growth.

Evil appeals to the natural man in many ways, covetous feelings are probably the biggest source of evil in the world imo and that comes from desiring what others have, including power, and believing we have a right to ‘have it all’ no matter what harm it brings to others (the ultimate arrogance imo).  Some rather than working with each other so all can achieve ‘having it all’ in oneness with God, those who choose to listen to the temptations work only for themselves ultimately, even if they hitch themselves to others temporarily as short cuts to power or wealth. 
 

I think the world would be a much better place if we all got in the habit of asking ourselves first “am I harming anyone by pursuing this desire?”.

PS:  interestingly enough, as soon as I posted this post, the only two songs out of 20 referring to the devil came up (shuffled, but it’s not that long of a playlist as it’s only songs with a strong, consistent drum beat for distracting me from RLS sensations, so not saying it’s spooky odd, just fun odd).  Both portray a devil to taken very seriously, even if internal.  And isn’t Satan portrayed as whispering in our ear?  What dialogue is more persuasive than our own destructive self talk?

The first was Dance with the Devil by Breaking Benjamin, an allegory for the “destructive cycle of addiction”.

It has some perfect lyrics, imo.

”I believe in you
I can show you that
I can see right through
All your empty lies
I won't stay long
In this world so wrong…

Feeling your cold dead eyes
Stealing the life of mine.”

Second was Awaken from League of Legends.

According to AI:

“It shows that life is fragile, forcing people to make hard choices when fate hangs in the balance”. (Lifeless description, but works)

“The night beckons while you dream
A life never lives in peace
As you stand upon the edge
Woven by a single thread
And fate may fall down upon you
While the devil is knocking
Right at your door

So all you restless
Each night you hear the drums of war
Awaken, awaken
The voice begins to call you while you hunger
A taste of destiny you're searching for
Awaken, awaken
The fight is at your door, take up the cause.”

I find these portrayals as more intimidating, more arresting than the temple portrayals where honestly Satan came across as more self dramatizing blowhard to me. (Props to the actors who did their best with the context, they can’t do complicated subtle portrayals under such circumstances).  I know how hard it is to ignore my self doubts and rationalizations while I find it pretty easy to dismiss others’ criticisms and flattery for the most part (except criticism from loved ones, but I never considered Satan in that category as he hasn’t earned it).

Edited August 2 by Calm

[Calm]

Would love to hear from those who believe in Satan and his devils tempting us how they see this happening, how they tell when it happens to them.  I am serious, not mocking.  I think it’s a possible explanation and it was the one I grew up with at church (one topic of our faith that didn’t get discussion at home) and definitely expected and visualized, but it just doesn’t feel orderly, ‘right’ in the way God’s actions in my life feel very solid, fitting….puzzle pieces that actually fit.

I have sensed the presence of evil in my life once and it scared me big time***, but I never felt a sense of someone trying to tempt me to do wrong outside of those I could see and touch or thoughts that seemed alien to me while I have felt pretty constantly a caring presence I identify as God that makes me feel very secure.

***My guess is I was somehow aware of a peeping tom who was later caught in the neighborhood (not that night, several weeks or months later).  The bushes by one of the windows of the basement I was staying in were flattened, but not broken as if an adult size body laid on them looking through the window…but I admit they might have grown that way for some odd reason.  

Edited August 2 by Calm

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It appears your obsession with DEI may have thrown your power to reason out of kilter. 

DEI? What? The propaganda you are consuming is rotting your brain.

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/30/2026 at 2:50 PM, Calm said:

I think the sum total of the opposition we have towards God because of the natural man supplies sufficient opposition.  1000 1 kg weights are equivalent in weight to 1 1000 kg weight.

Oh, yeah?!  Tell me, Ms. Smartypants, what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of metal!      

[Sorry!  Couldn't resist!    ]  Carry on!

 

[manol]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

... Satan and his devils tempting us...  I think it’s a possible explanation...

Agreed.  I'm agnostic about the literal existence of Satan, but acknowledge that that's one possible explanation. 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I have felt pretty constantly a caring presence I identify as God that makes me feel very secure.

Very interesting!

That feeling of "a caring presence that I identify as God" does not, and never has, come naturally to me, at least not in this life.  It is not (yet!) my default mode, though I hope someday it will be. 

Awareness of what could be called a "caring presence" is a relatively new experience for me.  It is something I have to deliberately work at via intention and attention by consciously choosing what occupies my mind.  I have to deliberately tune (and re-tune) my "radio" to that higher "station", but it IS becoming easier for me to do so, and to do so when circumstances make it difficult.  For me, that's an "opposition" that is (apparently) helping me to develop in an area where I (apparently) need to do so. 

And it is very encouraging to me to hear that the caring presence you identify as God is pretty much constantly present for you.  Seriously, hearing that makes me very happy for you.  And it shines through; your presence here is very much "caring".  Going back to the radio analogy:  We not only receive but also broadcast on whatever "station" we are tuned-in to. 

 

Edited August 2 by manol

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, yeah?!  Tell me, Ms. Smartypants, what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of metal!      

[Sorry!  Couldn't resist!    ]  Carry on!

 

I actually think that’s a perfect response.  Very in context.  Very insightful I would even say when you think about it.   

Edited August 2 by Calm

[california boy]

On 7/23/2026 at 8:53 AM, bluebell said:

Such a fun topic!  There is a series on the Church History Matters podcast that goes through all the iterations of LDS thoughts and beliefs on that subject over its history, and outlines different apostles and prophets ideas and beliefs on the subject.  I love history and found the entire series fascinating!  But my biggest take away is that there have been leaders who were pro-evolution and death before the fall and pre-adamites and leaders that believed that evolution was a 'damnable heresy' and both existed at the same time in the same quorum sometimes because of a difference in how they each interpreted scripture.

So I think that's the answer to your question.  With those topics where there has not been a revealed explanation, it all comes down to how someone interprets scripture through their personal ideas of reason and faith.

(if anyone wants a link to the podcast just let me know.  It has a great series on women and the priesthood and also one on the church and politics/slavery)

 

On 7/23/2026 at 4:59 PM, Pyreaux said:

By not assuming Genesis is a modern textbook. It wasn't, it was an ancient apocalyptic temple text. The Six-Day Creation is thought to be the six-day long vision Moses had when he was on the mountain before the Lord spoke to him on the seventh (Exodus 24:16) and told hm to construct the tabernacle after the manner he was shown on the mountain.

Day One - Light, first you assemble The Holy of Holies, Day Two - The Firmament, put up the Veil. Day Three - Dry Land, Seas, and Plants, set up the water lavers and the Table of Showbread. Day Four - Seven Great Lights, set up The Menorah. Day Five/Six - Animals, set up The Altar of Sacrifice and the outer court. Day Six - Man in the Image of God, dress the High Priest in sacred vestments. Day Seven - God rests, the priest atones as a proxy for God.

Genesis fits the pattern of an Apocalyptic vision. "Adam" seems likely to be an archetypal figure rather than a strict proper name. A "man" is a known code for a presiding High Priest. Signs suggests is in a rural temple east of Eden. Which is why, Genesis itself strongly hints at other humans existing outside the Garden (Gen 4:14–15; 17). Eden is not the world but one of four countries (Gen 2:11) 

In ancient Near Eastern Apocalyptic code, "beasts" frequently represent humans, foreign nations/kings, nation deities (demons), or un-covenanted mortals, while "men" or "angels" represent divine messengers, transfigured men, patriarchs, high priests or gods. The Serpent (nachash) can mean serpent, but as a verb means to cast spells, or whisper secrets, as an adjective means "shining one". Could be a fallen spiritual entity or lesser/other priest/power. It fits the standard apocalyptic convention of using animal imagery to describe spiritual and political order. Adam's creation represents the inauguration of a new priestly class, a king crowned at a specific moment in a kingdom that already existed, Adam was set apart to initiate a spiritual epoch, not to originate the species.

Beasts - a ram with two horns = the two kings of Media; the ten-horned dragon = the ten Roman rulers; the lamb with seven eyes = human Jesus.

Men - the man Gabriel = the angel Gabiel; the Son of Man = Son of God; Enoch's 70 shepherds = the 70 elohim of the nations.

Beasts become men, is men become gods - in Enoch, Noah was a white bull who became a man when he was told a secret = Noah transfigured and walked with God; Moses was a white sheep who became a man on Mount Sinai = Moses was transfigured on Mount Sinai. (1 Enoch 85–90)

 

On 7/24/2026 at 12:23 PM, Nofear said:

I personally find Hugh Nibley's position in his article Before Adam useful.

Thanks to all that answered my question, but I guess I was not clear in what specifically I was asking.  I realize that people can choose to read the story of the Garden of Eden literally or as an allegory.  That really wasn't my question.  What I wanted to understand better is how people who hold the belief that the Garden of Eden was a truthful account that supposedly occurred about 6,000 years ago as a truthful account on how mankind came in to existence is able to dismiss the fossil records that show humans living milllenials living and dying long before the Garden of Eden takes place.  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 

 

Thanks to all that answered my question, but I guess I was not clear in what specifically I was asking.  I realize that people can choose to read the story of the Garden of Eden literally or as an allegory.  That really wasn't my question.  What I wanted to understand better is how people who hold the belief that the Garden of Eden was a truthful account that supposedly occurred about 6,000 years ago as a truthful account on how mankind came in to existence is able to dismiss the fossil records that show humans living milllenials living and dying long before the Garden of Eden takes place.  

I don’t really know of too many people that are members of the church who believe that the garden story occurred 6000 years ago.  I’m sure they’re out there. I’m just never run into One and got to have a conversation with them. I think mostly they just believe that the fossil record is a hoax somehow. I’ve enjoyed reading the words of Leaders in the church who accepted the fossil record as accurate, and also accepted Adam and Eve as a literal people.  Those were the people that I was speaking about in my earlier post to you.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

 

 

Thanks to all that answered my question, but I guess I was not clear in what specifically I was asking.  I realize that people can choose to read the story of the Garden of Eden literally or as an allegory.  That really wasn't my question.  What I wanted to understand better is how people who hold the belief that the Garden of Eden was a truthful account that supposedly occurred about 6,000 years ago as a truthful account on how mankind came in to existence is able to dismiss the fossil records that show humans living milllenials living and dying long before the Garden of Eden takes place.  

I've met a few members that believe this.  The most common answer is that the earth was formed from material that had been used in previous planets and so the bones from those planets ended up in earth.

If you go outside of the church to those who are young-earthers, they have quite a lot of ways to explain it away.  A common way is to say that the flood triggered the fossils by burying them and that the process to fossilize is actually much faster than what mainstream scientists say.  There's even a paleontologist who is a young-earther - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_R._Ross.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The most common answer is that the earth was formed from material that had been used in previous planets and so the bones from those planets ended up in earth.

This is the one I heard growing up.

[Calm]

21 hours ago, webbles said:

A common way is to say that the flood triggered the fossils by burying them and that the process to fossilize is actually much faster than what mainstream scientists say. 

My guess is this is what Meldrum (Iknew he was young earth and hoped he mentioned it somewhere) believes because he dismisses the age scientists give for fossils because fossilization over long periods of time has never been observed directly, in the lab or out of it.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1808&context=msr

Also AI (this is an accurate summary according to the ideas I have seen from this very unfortunate model):

Quote

The "Universal Model" (UM) is a multi-volume alternative science project by Dean Sessions, embraced by some Latter-day Saints (LDS) and promoters like Rod Meldrum. It proposes rapid, catastrophic fossil and earth formation that aligns with literal scriptural accounts, challenging standard mainstream geology, evolution, and standard deep-time paleontology.

• Rapid Fossilization: The UM asserts that fossils and rock layers formed rapidly during catastrophic global events (such as Noah’s Flood) rather than over millions of years. [1, 2]

• Scriptural Harmony: Proponents use the model to reconcile Earth's physical history—including dinosaurs and prehistoric life—with a literal interpretation of biblical and LDS scriptures. [1, 2]

• Alternative Science: The project rejects conventional uniformitarian geology and standard radiometric dating in favor of "millennial science" laws observable through a paradigm of rapid global creation and destruction processes. [1]

 

 

Edited Friday at 09:06 PM by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

I've met a few members that believe this.  The most common answer is that the earth was formed from material that had been used in previous planets and so the bones from those planets ended up in earth.

If you go outside of the church to those who are young-earthers, they have quite a lot of ways to explain it away.  A common way is to say that the flood triggered the fossils by burying them and that the process to fossilize is actually much faster than what mainstream scientists say.  There's even a paleontologist who is a young-earther - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_R._Ross.

This is a common apologetic but it is a made up excuse with no data behind it. It makes sense intuitively but it doesn’t explain why dead animals are in places they would have lived on this Earth. Did God make the planet out of preexisting materials and carefully locate all the old fossils where they would be if the earth was older? Why?

The flood reasoning is even more silly and creates more problems than it solves.

Marcus R. Ross only graduated because he ignored his creationist beliefs in his phd thesis. He knows (or at least knew) how to do real science. He just chooses not to.

[Nofear]

On 8/6/2026 at 2:21 PM, california boy said:

Thanks to all that answered my question, but I guess I was not clear in what specifically I was asking.  I realize that people can choose to read the story of the Garden of Eden literally or as an allegory.  That really wasn't my question.  What I wanted to understand better is how people who hold the belief that the Garden of Eden was a truthful account that supposedly occurred about 6,000 years ago as a truthful account on how mankind came in to existence is able to dismiss the fossil records that show humans living milllenials living and dying long before the Garden of Eden takes place.  

From Nibley's talk: "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God."

I do not deny the Garden of Eden as a real place. Neither do I deny the reality of hominids*. I can even entertain the idea that the children of Adam and Eve interbred with such. In Nibley's account the defining feature of being a son or daughter of God is not biology but of covenant relationship for "until a man with a book walks onto the stage there is no story, no play". Understanding the earth's evolutionary history, geology, etc. is a great and worthy endeavor (though I personally inclined my interested to cosmology), from the perspective of spiritual progression the history that matters the most is that of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve**.


* There is a very interesting question asked during the presentation of the endowment that many overlook.
** I hold that Adam and Eve are historical and presently real, resurrected individuals.

[california boy]

On 8/10/2026 at 7:14 AM, Nofear said:

From Nibley's talk: "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God."

I do not deny the Garden of Eden as a real place. Neither do I deny the reality of hominids*. I can even entertain the idea that the children of Adam and Eve interbred with such. In Nibley's account the defining feature of being a son or daughter of God is not biology but of covenant relationship for "until a man with a book walks onto the stage there is no story, no play". Understanding the earth's evolutionary history, geology, etc. is a great and worthy endeavor (though I personally inclined my interested to cosmology), from the perspective of spiritual progression the history that matters the most is that of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve**.


* There is a very interesting question asked during the presentation of the endowment that many overlook.
** I hold that Adam and Eve are historical and presently real, resurrected individuals.

What does this viewpoint mean to you and how do you deal with death before Adam and Eve?  

[longview]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

On 8/10/2026 at 8:14 AM, Nofear said:

From Nibley's talk: "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God."

I do not deny the Garden of Eden as a real place. Neither do I deny the reality of hominids*. I can even entertain the idea that the children of Adam and Eve interbred with such. In Nibley's account the defining feature of being a son or daughter of God is not biology but of covenant relationship for "until a man with a book walks onto the stage there is no story, no play". Understanding the earth's evolutionary history, geology, etc. is a great and worthy endeavor (though I personally inclined my interested to cosmology), from the perspective of spiritual progression the history that matters the most is that of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve**.

* There is a very interesting question asked during the presentation of the endowment that many overlook.
** I hold that Adam and Eve are historical and presently real, resurrected individuals.

What does this viewpoint mean to you and how do you deal with death before Adam and Eve?  

To say that there were hominids that lived and died PRIOR to the establishment of the "Garden of Eden" is to imply that the world began as a telestial world. Which is a contradiction for the following reasons:

• it would be illogical for "The Gods" to first create a telestial world then change it into a terrestrial world in which there were immortal creatures living in Paradise having no corruption and chaos
• "The Gods" first determined to start a Plan of Happiness by going "down" to where there was "matter unorganized" to make "it into a world like unto the worlds that we have heretofore formed."
• it is very possible that "matter unorganized" may have included fragments of dead planets that contained geological layers imbedded with hominids and various other lifeforms
• another perspective is that dating methods may be way off the mark (refer to Stephen Myers for his powerful overview of scientific arguments - https://stephencmeyer.org/)

[Stargazer]

On 7/21/2026 at 10:15 PM, Calm said:

That is the solution to this argument I have heard before, he didn’t just want to stop the Plan from being fulfilled, he was too invested in corrupting and pulling down others and wouldn’t have the chance otherwise.

I am kind of surprised NoFear hadn’t heard the “why didn’t Satan just sit on his hands and keep his mouth shut” argument.  I heard it back in seminary, iirc.  If not at least in college.  I thought it was a common part of the conversation.

Not everyone has heard this. I've been a member for 60 years and I can't recall having heard this before. But it makes perfect sense.

On 7/21/2026 at 10:15 PM, Calm said:

That can be answered by the possibility God had a variation where he would give the necessary knowledge for procreation eventually (since this is all speculation anyway).

I believe that Adam and Eve did know what to do. I can't imagine Adam knowing enough to name Eve the "Mother of all Living" but not enough to know how it was to be done. I am resistant to taking the Genesis creation story absolutely literally, but after God brought Eve to Adam, and before the Fall occurred, he said:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

He clearly knew what needed to be done. And Eve must have known it, too. And knowing what to do, what would stop them from acting upon that knowledge while still in the Garden? They were husband and wife, after all, so it would have been perfectly acceptable for them to do so. Were they experiencing sexual desire at that point? Who knows? But regardless of that, their bodies were not only immortal, they were flesh and bone, not flesh and blood. Their circulatory systems had no blood until they ate that fruit. Conception requires the implantation of a fertilized ovum onto a uterine lining prepared for gestation. Without blood, this is clearly not going to happen. Blood is a marker for mortality. So Eve's body was not capable of conceiving at that point. And although she was a mature woman, Eve did not undergo menarche until they were cast out of the Garden. Was Adam's body capable of producing "seed" before the Fall? Who knows, but it doesn't matter because Eve couldn't conceive in any case.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:47 PM by Stargazer

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, longview said:

To say that there were hominids that lived and died PRIOR to the establishment of the "Garden of Eden" is to imply that the world began as a telestial world. Which is a contradiction for the following reasons:

• it would be illogical for "The Gods" to first create a telestial world then change it into a terrestrial world in which there were immortal creatures living in Paradise having no corruption and chaos
• "The Gods" first determined to start a Plan of Happiness by going "down" to where there was "matter unorganized" to make "it into a world like unto the worlds that we have heretofore formed."
• it is very possible that "matter unorganized" may have included fragments of dead planets that contained geological layers imbedded with hominids and various other lifeforms
• another perspective is that dating methods may be way off the mark (refer to Stephen Myers for his powerful overview of scientific arguments - https://stephencmeyer.org/)

• Technically, there isn't any doctrine that says the Garden of Eden was terrestrial. That said, I actually conceptualize it as thus myself. But, I don't think the entire planet was the terrestrial, just a localized segment, a "garden" as it were.
• Not sure what you intended to convey by this point. On a more general note, I think the plurality of worlds is one of the most under appreciated doctrines of the Church.
• I think the fragment of other worlds was an idea held by Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith. I don't give it an credence though. Doesn't fit any of the observational data.
• There are uncertainties in every dating method, but none will be so dramatic as to invalidate the basic geological timeline.

With the exception of the second point, which I didn't understand, I don't see them as being a rejection of pre-Adamites. While I thoroughly reject the third and fourth point as severely anti-scientific and thus out of harmony with Mormonism, I won't be burning anybody at the stake for it.


 

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

... how do you deal with death before Adam and Eve?  

No death before the Fall can't be understood literally. When the First Parents ate fruit, the fruit "died". There is a good chance they stepped on a bug at some point and squished it. Without death and recycling, no biome can long persist. 

I personally think of it as being a statement about the condition of physical mortality not existing for some undefined threshold of more advanced life contained in the Garden. I have some more tenuously held speculations about the purpose of the Garden, but they aren't all that germane to the question at hand.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

What does this viewpoint mean to you and how do you deal with death before Adam and Eve?  

You weren't asking me, but I thought I would answer anyway...

I am one of those who is perfectly comfortable with the universe resulting from the Big Bang, 13.5 billion years ago, and our sun igniting its fusion engine 4.5 billion years ago. This includes the reality of evolution.  And I regard the Genesis creation story not as literal, but as allegory. God revealed as much as He felt wise to Moses, but He wasn't going to give Moses a comprehensive lesson in astrophysics, cosmology, and evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, Moses did get some cosmology in Moses 1, where the Lord tells him that he's created worlds with humans that have passed on, that there are many that are still "in play," and that more will be created. All for the purpose of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

If you're curious, I wrote an essay about the Fermi Paradox when considered from the point of view of Moses 1:33-39. Link is HERE.

Did the Garden exist? I'm pretty sure it did. Were Adam and Eve plunked down in it like Genesis says? I'm pretty sure they were. Did the Fall occur exactly as described? Again, probably. But I reserve the right to believe it could be allegorical, too, and/or that the only place where death had not yet entered into the world was that Garden of Eden. What does all this say about Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc? I don't know. That there is Neanderthal DNA in some of us suggests that they pre-existed Adam and Eve. Finally, I do not subscribe to Archbishop Ussher's calculated date of Creation of around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.